Tenure definition document promotes wide-ranging
dialogue

By Mary Jo Frank Record Special Writer

A
faculty-generated document "Toward A Definition of Tenure" is
accomplishing its authors' goals: encouraging colleagues to discuss rights
and responsibilities of tenured faculty, and collegiality at the U-M.

More than 50 faculty and staff attended a forum last Thursday on the
meaning of tenure.

Although agreeing that tenure is important to
the vitality of the University and to preserve academic freedom, forum
speakers differed on how far the University should go in codifying the
rights and responsibilities associated with tenure.

Provost Gilbert
R. Whitaker Jr. and Donald J. Lewis, professor and former chair of the
Department of Mathematics, cautioned against putting too much detail in
any document defining tenure. Lewis, who recalled the days when junior
faculty in mathematics thought nothing of sharing office space, said today
young faculty members expect to have their own offices. Spelling out
institutional support to include "adequate classroom, library, laboratory
and office facilities," as proposed in "Toward A Definition of Tenure,"
could result in more grievances, he warned.

Whitaker said a
"minimalist approach to formal rules and formal processes and a dedication
to shared governance and to colleagueship" works better in a University
devoted to excellence, merit and fairness.

Alumnus Kenneth
Dau-Schmidt, professor of law at Indiana University and the University of
Wisconsin, praised "Toward A Definition of Tenure." The document was
developed by the Standing Subcommittee on Tenure of the Senate Advisory
Committee on University Affairs (SACUA) and endorsed by Senate Assembly
Dec. 12.

"I think this document is excellent," said Dau-Schmidt, a
member of the National Council and Executive Committee of the American
Association of University Professors (AAUP).

Tenure, Dau-Schmidt
said, is important for the efficient operation of academic departments
because peer review is needed to decide whose research, teaching and
service merit the offering of tenure.

A hiring system without
tenure, with faculty serving as employees-at-will, would promote
mediocrity, Dau-Schmidt said, because faculty would tend to hire less
talented colleagues so they wouldn't have to worry about competition. It
also would destroy collegiality because senior faculty would have no
incentive to mentor younger faculty, again for fear of losing their
jobs.

The rational strategy for faculty seeking tenure is to
publish, publish, publish, Dau-Schmidt said, because "research is the only
thing that is marketable." The rational thing to do after receiving tenure
is to spend more time on teaching and service.

If universities
hired faculty as employees-at-will, research would take even greater
precedence over teaching and service than it does today, he predicted.

Kent D. Syverud, professor of law and principal author of "Toward a
Definition of Tenure," said one of the difficulties in drafting a
definition of tenure is the broad array of tenure and promotion practices
at the University.

Sections of the document dealing with privileges
and responsibilities of tenure have generated the most response, Syverud
said. The committee agreed that failure of tenured faculty members to meet
their responsibilities should have consequences but "we punted on the
consequences," Syverud said.

Whatever definition of tenure the
University community develops, it should signify what tenure means at the
U-M. Without dialogue on the subject, the University risks being saddled
with a definition dictated by court decisions, Syverud warned.

Whitaker said tenure is offered, not earned, through the peer review
process, and brings with it obligations both to the University and to the
individual. The University is obligated to do all it can to enable the
faculty member to carry out the program of teaching and scholarship for
which the appointment was offered. The faculty member, in turn, accepts an
obligation to work diligently to achieve excellence in scholarly work and
in teaching.

Whitaker said: "Frankly, I believe this document is a
step backward in the protection of the liberties of academic freedom and a
big step backwards in describing the obligations of tenure--and indeed the
obligations of academic work. I furthermore believe that, with full and
adequate discussion, most faculty and the Regents would find the
underlying attitudes in this document very discouraging, especially in an
institution which strives for excellence, rewards, merit, values
fairness."

Whitaker said he and SACUA agree that some elements of
the grievance system need improvement. "I think we can begin the process
of fixing those we agree on soon. The rest will take a little longer."

The forum was sponsored by SACUA, the Academic Women's Caucus and the
U-M chapter of the AAUP.